Woman avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her lifeless mom’s ballot in Arizona in the 2020 general election.

However the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one in all only a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election that have led to fees, despite widespread belief amongst many supporters of former President Donald Trump that there was widespread voter fraud that led to his loss in Arizona and different battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale but now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret LaBianca before the choose handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to affect the result of the election.

“Your Honor, I want to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was wrong and I’m prepared to simply accept the results handed down by the courtroom.”

Each McKee and her mom, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots had been mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator together with his office where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s poll.

“The one technique to prevent voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud is going to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I mean, there’s no approach to make sure a good election.

“And I don’t believe that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do believe there was loads of voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s legal professional, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and said no one got jail time in those instances. He said agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply said, over an extended time frame, in voluminous cases, 67 instances, no one on this state for comparable instances, in comparable context ... no one got jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was necessary because the type of case has modified. While in years previous, most cases concerned folks voting in two states because they either lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had bought into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the choose. “And primarily what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slip in underneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that at all,” he said. “And I feel the perspective you hear in the interview is the attitude that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca said that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she instructed the investigator what she wished: going after people who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the courtroom would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca said. “But the document right here does not show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any proof, except your individual fraud, such statements are not illegal as far as I know,” the judge continued.